CPU Upgrade

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
Thanks for the input!

Mike

Dimension 8200
Win XP Home SP2
512 Megs RDRAM
GeForce FX5900XT
Soundblaster Live!
10 answers Last reply
More about upgrade
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    A 3.06GHz processor will make your system run marginally faster than with the
    2.53GHz one. IMHO, hardly worth the cost and labor involved... Ben Myers

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:10:35 GMT, Mike <Mike@SunnyOrlando.com> wrote:

    >O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >Thanks for the input!
    >
    >Mike
    >
    >Dimension 8200
    >Win XP Home SP2
    >512 Megs RDRAM
    >GeForce FX5900XT
    >Soundblaster Live!
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Mike wrote:

    > O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    > RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    > conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    > increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    > mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    > highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    > processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    > Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    > would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    > shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    > Thanks for the input!

    Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis magazines, used
    the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn close to it.
    With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is damned
    difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they do offer
    the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But today,
    there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs which
    operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall correctly), only a
    20% improvement... Ben Myers

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:

    >Mike wrote:
    >
    >> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >> Thanks for the input!
    >
    >Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Ben,
    In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram worth
    it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I do
    is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed would
    you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor the
    8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth the
    extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    Paul

    <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    > My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    > magazines, used
    > the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn close
    > to it.
    > With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    > damned
    > difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they do
    > offer
    > the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    > today,
    > there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs which
    > operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall correctly),
    > only a
    > 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >
    >>Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>> Thanks for the input!
    >>
    >>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Mike,

    I uppped to the 3.06 cpu and did see an improvement in video encoding.
    But, I did not benchmark the diff between the old 2.4 and the new 3.06
    so I can't give you any numbers. I have recently read that games, not
    sure if all, do see and immediate improvement in fps with a faster
    cpu, with the implication that the cpu is in fact a bottleneck for the
    video card. Then again, it was between an Intel 2.8 and an AMD Athlon
    64 3800+ cpu. You can the review at:

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/136/

    The question is, is it worth putting the 'upgrade money' into a new
    computer instead..I would say yes, of course if you have the finances.
    I made my upgrades little by little over a 2 yr period which is much
    easier than buying a complete new system. But if I hadn't made any
    upgrades yet, definitely a new one.

    bigsley

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:10:35 GMT, Mike <Mike@SunnyOrlando.com> wrote:

    >O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >Thanks for the input!
    >
    >Mike
    >
    >Dimension 8200
    >Win XP Home SP2
    >512 Megs RDRAM
    >GeForce FX5900XT
    >Soundblaster Live!
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    For the types of tasks you're talking about, I would save a bit of money and buy
    a system with less-than-the-fastest processor available. The savings in the
    price of the processor could go toward additional memory, probably not from
    Dell, but from Crucial or another well-regarded and less costly supplier of
    memory. Yeah, go for the 1GB of memory. Systems sure operate better with lots
    of memory... Ben Myers

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:26:28 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:

    >Ben,
    > In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram worth
    >it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I do
    >is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed would
    >you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor the
    >8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    >expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth the
    >extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    >Paul
    >
    ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    >> My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    >> magazines, used
    >> the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn close
    >> to it.
    >> With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    >> damned
    >> difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they do
    >> offer
    >> the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    >> today,
    >> there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs which
    >> operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall correctly),
    >> only a
    >> 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Mike wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >>>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >>>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>>> Thanks for the input!
    >>>
    >>>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >>
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Ben,
    Okay, we're on the same page here. Now is the few bucks they want to
    upgrade to the 533 MHz memory worth it?
    Paul

    <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    news:41747596.17666034@news.charter.net...
    > For the types of tasks you're talking about, I would save a bit of money
    > and buy
    > a system with less-than-the-fastest processor available. The savings in
    > the
    > price of the processor could go toward additional memory, probably not
    > from
    > Dell, but from Crucial or another well-regarded and less costly supplier
    > of
    > memory. Yeah, go for the 1GB of memory. Systems sure operate better with
    > lots
    > of memory... Ben Myers
    >
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:26:28 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    > <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >
    >>Ben,
    >> In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram worth
    >>it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I do
    >>is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed
    >>would
    >>you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor the
    >>8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    >>expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth the
    >>extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    >>Paul
    >>
    >><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    >>> My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    >>> magazines, used
    >>> the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn close
    >>> to it.
    >>> With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    >>> damned
    >>> difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they do
    >>> offer
    >>> the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    >>> today,
    >>> there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs
    >>> which
    >>> operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall
    >>> correctly),
    >>> only a
    >>> 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Mike wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>>>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>>>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >>>>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>>>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>>>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>>>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >>>>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>>>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>>>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>>>> Thanks for the input!
    >>>>
    >>>>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>>>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>>>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>>>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Does the added price include a CPU operating with 533MHz FSB? If so and the sum
    of money is small, the answer is likely to be yes. But if the CPU is the same,
    FSB and all, whether 400 or 533 memory, you are not getting much of a deal.
    Still, for the long term when the prices of used P4 processors become like dirt
    and a CPU upgrade is very affordable for a small bump in performance, the 533MHz
    FSB memory makes a lot of sense... Ben Myers

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:36:34 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:

    >Ben,
    > Okay, we're on the same page here. Now is the few bucks they want to
    >upgrade to the 533 MHz memory worth it?
    >Paul
    >
    ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >news:41747596.17666034@news.charter.net...
    >> For the types of tasks you're talking about, I would save a bit of money
    >> and buy
    >> a system with less-than-the-fastest processor available. The savings in
    >> the
    >> price of the processor could go toward additional memory, probably not
    >> from
    >> Dell, but from Crucial or another well-regarded and less costly supplier
    >> of
    >> memory. Yeah, go for the 1GB of memory. Systems sure operate better with
    >> lots
    >> of memory... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:26:28 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    >> <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Ben,
    >>> In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram worth
    >>>it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I do
    >>>is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed
    >>>would
    >>>you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor the
    >>>8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    >>>expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth the
    >>>extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    >>>Paul
    >>>
    >>><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>>news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    >>>> My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    >>>> magazines, used
    >>>> the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn close
    >>>> to it.
    >>>> With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    >>>> damned
    >>>> difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they do
    >>>> offer
    >>>> the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    >>>> today,
    >>>> there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs
    >>>> which
    >>>> operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall
    >>>> correctly),
    >>>> only a
    >>>> 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >>>>
    >>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Mike wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>>>>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>>>>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a performance
    >>>>>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>>>>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>>>>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>>>>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E chipset).
    >>>>>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>>>>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>>>>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>>>>> Thanks for the input!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>>>>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>>>>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>>>>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Ben,
    Okay so if I've got this correct, a P4 3.0GHz w/ 800 FSB could utilize
    memory with a speed of up to 800 MHz. If I could put memory in it with 900
    MHz I'd just be wasting money on more expensive memory then what the
    processor can use. Since Dell only wants $18 for 1G (2x512M) for the 533 MHz
    over the 400 MHz that doesn't sound too bad.
    Paul

    <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    news:41750228.2480164@news.charter.net...
    > Does the added price include a CPU operating with 533MHz FSB? If so and
    > the sum
    > of money is small, the answer is likely to be yes. But if the CPU is the
    > same,
    > FSB and all, whether 400 or 533 memory, you are not getting much of a
    > deal.
    > Still, for the long term when the prices of used P4 processors become like
    > dirt
    > and a CPU upgrade is very affordable for a small bump in performance, the
    > 533MHz
    > FSB memory makes a lot of sense... Ben Myers
    >
    > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:36:34 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    > <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >
    >>Ben,
    >> Okay, we're on the same page here. Now is the few bucks they want to
    >>upgrade to the 533 MHz memory worth it?
    >>Paul
    >>
    >><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>news:41747596.17666034@news.charter.net...
    >>> For the types of tasks you're talking about, I would save a bit of money
    >>> and buy
    >>> a system with less-than-the-fastest processor available. The savings in
    >>> the
    >>> price of the processor could go toward additional memory, probably not
    >>> from
    >>> Dell, but from Crucial or another well-regarded and less costly supplier
    >>> of
    >>> memory. Yeah, go for the 1GB of memory. Systems sure operate better
    >>> with
    >>> lots
    >>> of memory... Ben Myers
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:26:28 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    >>> <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Ben,
    >>>> In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram
    >>>> worth
    >>>>it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I
    >>>>do
    >>>>is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed
    >>>>would
    >>>>you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor
    >>>>the
    >>>>8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    >>>>expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth
    >>>>the
    >>>>extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    >>>>Paul
    >>>>
    >>>><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>>>news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    >>>>> My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    >>>>> magazines, used
    >>>>> the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn
    >>>>> close
    >>>>> to it.
    >>>>> With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    >>>>> damned
    >>>>> difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they
    >>>>> do
    >>>>> offer
    >>>>> the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    >>>>> today,
    >>>>> there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs
    >>>>> which
    >>>>> operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall
    >>>>> correctly),
    >>>>> only a
    >>>>> 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Mike wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>>>>>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>>>>>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a
    >>>>>>> performance
    >>>>>>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>>>>>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>>>>>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>>>>>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E
    >>>>>>> chipset).
    >>>>>>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>>>>>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>>>>>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>>>>>> Thanks for the input!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>>>>>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>>>>>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>>>>>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    If you're talking an $18 premium for 533MHz memory compared to 400MHz memory,
    both 2x512MB, that is within reason... Ben Myers

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:10:55 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:

    >Ben,
    > Okay so if I've got this correct, a P4 3.0GHz w/ 800 FSB could utilize
    >memory with a speed of up to 800 MHz. If I could put memory in it with 900
    >MHz I'd just be wasting money on more expensive memory then what the
    >processor can use. Since Dell only wants $18 for 1G (2x512M) for the 533 MHz
    >over the 400 MHz that doesn't sound too bad.
    >Paul
    >
    ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >news:41750228.2480164@news.charter.net...
    >> Does the added price include a CPU operating with 533MHz FSB? If so and
    >> the sum
    >> of money is small, the answer is likely to be yes. But if the CPU is the
    >> same,
    >> FSB and all, whether 400 or 533 memory, you are not getting much of a
    >> deal.
    >> Still, for the long term when the prices of used P4 processors become like
    >> dirt
    >> and a CPU upgrade is very affordable for a small bump in performance, the
    >> 533MHz
    >> FSB memory makes a lot of sense... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:36:34 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    >> <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Ben,
    >>> Okay, we're on the same page here. Now is the few bucks they want to
    >>>upgrade to the 533 MHz memory worth it?
    >>>Paul
    >>>
    >>><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>>news:41747596.17666034@news.charter.net...
    >>>> For the types of tasks you're talking about, I would save a bit of money
    >>>> and buy
    >>>> a system with less-than-the-fastest processor available. The savings in
    >>>> the
    >>>> price of the processor could go toward additional memory, probably not
    >>>> from
    >>>> Dell, but from Crucial or another well-regarded and less costly supplier
    >>>> of
    >>>> memory. Yeah, go for the 1GB of memory. Systems sure operate better
    >>>> with
    >>>> lots
    >>>> of memory... Ben Myers
    >>>>
    >>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:26:28 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
    >>>> <paulschilter@comcast,dot,net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Ben,
    >>>>> In your opinion is the Dell upgrade from 400 MHz to 533 MHz. ram
    >>>>> worth
    >>>>>it? If one is not a game player, probably the most cpu intensive task I
    >>>>>do
    >>>>>is ripping CD's to MP3's, What speed processor and ram amount / speed
    >>>>>would
    >>>>>you recommend, (here I favor a minimum of 1 gig)? For example I favor
    >>>>>the
    >>>>>8400 series for its PCI Express buss and its larger case for future
    >>>>>expandability but I'm not so sure that the fastest cpu would be worth
    >>>>>the
    >>>>>extra money for my application. Yours or others thoughts?
    >>>>>Paul
    >>>>>
    >>>>><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:41743548.1202110@news.charter.net...
    >>>>>> My old friend, Dave Methvin, who wrote many years for Ziff-Davis
    >>>>>> magazines, used
    >>>>>> the same double-the-speed rule of thumb. Double the speed or darn
    >>>>>> close
    >>>>>> to it.
    >>>>>> With Intel's current and recent past technology, doubling the speed is
    >>>>>> damned
    >>>>>> difficult. PowerLeap's adapters are fairly impressive, because they
    >>>>>> do
    >>>>>> offer
    >>>>>> the prospect of doubling CPU speed, albeit at a very high price. But
    >>>>>> today,
    >>>>>> there is no 5.06GHz Pentium 4 available. Not even close. The CPUs
    >>>>>> which
    >>>>>> operate with a 533MHz bus top out at around 3GHz (if I recall
    >>>>>> correctly),
    >>>>>> only a
    >>>>>> 20% improvement... Ben Myers
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:18 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Mike wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> O.K. I talked myself out of upgrading from 512 Megs to 1024 Megs of
    >>>>>>>> RDRAM after some input from folks in this newsgroup. I came to this
    >>>>>>>> conclusion because I did not think I would see much of a
    >>>>>>>> performance
    >>>>>>>> increase in my game playing and or rendering times. Someone had
    >>>>>>>> mentioned a CPU upgrade. After some searching I've learned that the
    >>>>>>>> highest speed CPU my system will allow is a 3.06 GHz (533 MHz)
    >>>>>>>> processor. At the moment I have a 2.53 GHz processor (850E
    >>>>>>>> chipset).
    >>>>>>>> Not having ever used a computer faster than my current configuration
    >>>>>>>> would I note much of an increase in loading times for my games or
    >>>>>>>> shortened rendering times in my 3D applications with this upgrade ?
    >>>>>>>> Thanks for the input!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Not worth it - the only improvement would be seen by benchmarking
    >>>>>>>software and that would be small. I doubt that you'd notice any
    >>>>>>>difference at all. IIRC the ROT for CPU upgrades is that you have to
    >>>>>>>double the CPU speed to make a noticeable improvement.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell CPUs Computers